Criminal law issues

Lars Jilmstad (M)

Madam Speaker! When we today debate this report on criminal law issues, we face conditions that concern the very core of our social contract – justice, security, and protection for the weakest among us. It is about how we view our common morality, how we show that society stands on the side of the vulnerable, and how we translate these values into wise and effective laws.

Madam Speaker! Psychological violence is a dark shadow in many people's lives. It breaks down, isolates, and diminishes. It is a violence that leaves no visible marks but can transform a home into a prison and a relationship into a tyranny. Women in particular are affected by this form of systematic control and degradation.

When several parties are now proposing to criminalize this, we stand wholeheartedly behind that ambition. For the Moderates, it is a matter of course that society should stand on the victim's side.

But just because this issue is so important, we must take responsibility for creating legislation that actually works in practice. We do not want symbol politics. We want real results for real people in real distress.

The Moderaterna are therefore ready to proceed with criminalization once the government has completed its work. The women who today live under psychological violence deserve legislation that actually provides them with redress. Our moral compass is clear: All forms of violence in close relationships shall be fought with full force, regardless of whether they leave bruises on the body or on the soul.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to our children, we can never do enough. It is a moral duty for a civilized society to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The sexual abuse of children, especially that which is now occurring in the digital world, constitutes one of the darkest crimes of our time against our common humanity.

We view with particular concern the phenomenon of sexual extortion of children, where young people are manipulated and forced into actions under threat and shame. This is an abuse that can follow a child throughout their entire upbringing and leave deep marks far into adulthood.

The government's bill, which is now before the Riksdag, contains significant reinforcements of the protection. We are expanding the criminal liability for rape of children, we are increasing the possibilities to prosecute those who exploit children through the purchase of sexual acts, and we are adapting the legislation to the digital reality where many abuses now occur.

Parallel to this, we are investigating how provocative measures can be used more effectively in crime fighting – an important tool to reach perpetrators before they have time to harm more children.

Madam Speaker! Let me now turn my gaze toward a question of a different type but which also concerns fundamental legal principles. In the question of late submitted annual reports, we face a balancing act between effective crime fighting and reasonable conditions for entrepreneurs.

The Sweden Democrats raise an important principle in their motion: the punishment must be in proportion to the severity of the crime. It is difficult to defend a system where a small business owner who, out of pure ignorance or lack of time, misses an administrative deadline risks the same criminal law consequences as in cases of serious violent crimes.

We want a Sweden that is welcoming and easy for business. It creates jobs, welfare, and faith in the future. At the same time, the regulatory framework surrounding business must be designed so that dishonest and criminal actors can be identified and excluded. We therefore believe that this issue requires the scrutiny that is currently ongoing through the special investigation that we have appointed.

This is not a question of being for or against entrepreneurship; it is a question of creating a system that both promotes entrepreneurship and maintains the basic order that a functioning business sector requires.

Madam Speaker! In addition to these three areas, the report contains a number of important issues, from crimes against public order to penalties for drunk driving and measures against money laundering. For all of these areas, a comprehensive reform process is currently underway.

When the committee proposes to reject motions, it is not because the issues lack significance, but on the contrary. It is precisely because they are so important that we want to ensure that the legislation we create truly makes a difference. We do not want symbolic politics; we want results.

We from the Moderaternas side welcome the commitment to the rule of law and safety that is expressed in the committee report. The Swedish social contract is based on the idea that every human being should be able to live in safety, that every child should be able to grow up without fear of abuse, and that every entrepreneur should be able to operate under reasonable and predictable conditions.

Sweden shall be a country where crime victims receive justice, where children are protected from abuse, and where entrepreneurs can focus on creating jobs without fear of disproportionate consequences. It is our vision, and it is for that we work every day.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Heléne Björklund (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report on criminal law issues.

I want to begin by clarifying that we Social Democrats stand behind our reservations number 1 and 5, and I move for the approval of both of these. It concerns violence against women and the fight against organized crime. That is where I will have my focus in this debate.

We Social Democrats pursue a crime policy based on a clear and simple message: repression with precision. We shall be tough on crime, but in a legally secure and accurate manner.

We live in a Sweden where insecurity spreads faster than safety is built and where gang violence creeps ever further down in age. During the Social Democrats' time in government, we tightened the penalties, implemented a historic forfeiture law, and increased the number of police to record levels.

We are proud of the change of course, but we are also honest: it was not enough. We should have done even more, and we should have done it even faster. When we see that the number of shootings, explosions, and murders is increasing and when children under 15 are involved in murder cases – then a new and more powerful approach is required.

Therefore, we propose a new Swedish mafia law. In short, it means that the entire gang can be punished and not just the one holding the weapon. More people should dare to report their bosses, the gang leaders, and receive shorter sentences if it can help the police. We shall strike against the gangs' companies and black money and not just against the individuals. We want to see special mafia units, elite forces within the police, the prosecutors and the Economic Crime Authority, who can hunt gang criminals.

These are tools that we believe can capture the gang leaders, who otherwise hide abroad and choke off the flow of money that fuels the violence.

We Social Democrats believe that Sweden must ramp up the fight against money laundering and the criminal economy. It is not enough to take care of the gangs' weapons; we must also strike at their cash flows. The gangs' power is not built only on weapons and violence. It is built on money – blood money that fuels luxury lives, bribes, and new crimes. The gangs' business model is simply based on their ability to wash their money clean, buy real estate, start companies, and conduct business.

This is organized crime for real, and it poses a direct threat to our societal model. Therefore, we Social Democrats want to step up the fight against money laundering, and I hereby move for approval of our reservation 5.

It is important that the criminal economy is not allowed to spread, and it is important that we do this with precision. It is not honest entrepreneurs who should be punished, and it is not ordinary wage earners who should pay the price.

Madam Speaker! We often speak, rightly so, about the ruthless gang violence that affects many innocent people. But we must also speak about the invisible crime that strikes innocent people in their own homes.

Stopping violence against women is a matter of safety, freedom, justice, and respect. Violence against women was a priority issue during the previous S-led government. During our government tenure, we tightened the penalties for sexual offenses, assault, and aggravated violation of a woman's peace. We introduced the consent legislation – a paradigm shift in Swedish legal history. We criminalized honor-based oppression, and we added special female peace investigators to the police.

But we also saw the psychological violence – the silent abuse that does not leave bruises but breaks down a person's soul. That is why our S-government commissioned an inquiry into criminalizing controlling behavior. The inquiry was completed as early as 2022, but the current government has let the proposal lie and gather dust. That is not enough. Psychological abuse is violence, and controlling behavior is a crime. It must therefore be criminalized.

Madam Speaker! 107 times every day all year round, or every thirteen minutes, a report of a woman being assaulted is made in Sweden. Behind these figures lies a reality of physical violence, but also a form of assault that all too often remains invisible: the psychological.

Psychological violence breaks people down slowly. It starts with a comment, a prohibition against meeting friends, or a questioning of clothes or eating habits. It is about control and isolation.

The S-led government took these signals seriously and appointed an inquiry that proposed the introduction of a new crime type: controlling behavior. I therefore move for approval of reservation 1.

In conclusion: We Social Democrats see, as said, the need for a powerful, broad and long-term crime policy. We are prepared to take responsibility, even in opposition. That is why we are reconsidering, strengthening and developing our policy. We do it out of respect for every crime victim and for every child who risks being drawn into the gangs' claws. We do it because we see that Sweden needs a new direction.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! For most in our country, safety is at the top of the wish list. Law and order has risen as one of the voters' absolutely most important issues.

Dark headlines about the violence and the gross crime follow one after another. It concerns individuals who believe they have the right to use and inflict violence on the entire society. Easter weekend was overshadowed by fatal shootings and a large number of explosions – most recently, just the other day, the horrific act in a quiet terraced house area in Tumba where a mother and a daughter suffered life-threatening injuries in an explosion, both obviously completely innocent.

Madam Speaker! The light in the darkness is nevertheless that we now have a government that understands the seriousness of this. We are tightening the legislation in several areas. The law enforcement authorities, the police among them, have received completely new tools. One becomes more efficient and solves more crimes. We still, however, have a long way to go to combat the violence we now see.

We are making the largest reorganization of crime policy in modern times. We do this because we see and know what the dismantling of good norms and values over time has done to Swedish society. Much of the explanation for the brutal crime development we are now seeing lies in this.

It has not been clear which values are not electable. Sweden has betrayed the importance of the family and the importance of a compass regarding right and wrong. This has also been reflected in the low sentences and in the sentencing that has placed greater weight on mitigating circumstances for the perpetrator than on the requirement for the crime victim's restitution.

Madam Speaker! The Government is working diligently and with great energy in the legal area – for law and order, for safety, to strengthen good norms and values, and to prevent crime.

There are no silver bullets against crime. As a police officer, I have seen the development of crime up close throughout an entire professional life. The measures that are now being introduced should have been in place much earlier, but the inclination and the will for change were lacking. Now it is what it is, and I know that it is patient work that is required, a methodical work step by step. There is no quick fix here. Slowly but surely we will regain safety, but it will take time. I think we all realize that.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats have for years said that society must prioritize the person who has been subjected to a crime. Now we have a government that also lets this fact guide the policy.

The government has initiated a paradigm shift in the view of law and order. We have initiated a historical, complete and total review of criminal law, the legislation that governs the penalties imposed when justice is to be administered in our courts. The goal of this work is simple: to rebalance the scales, change criminal law and let the crime victim, not the perpetrator, stand in the center. We shall place the care there, not on the perpetrator.

Madam Speaker! Surveys indicate that a majority of voters believe that tougher and more deterrent sentences are the best line for reducing crime. Incapacitation of hardened criminals has a crime-preventing effect. Deportation and exclusion of criminals has a crime-preventing effect. We will continue to work on those issues.

The punishment has not been perceived as fair and proportionate. Crime victims have not received the deserved redress that was expected. Now we are changing that. We are introducing punishments that ensure dangerous individuals are locked up for longer periods and cannot commit new crimes, ruin others' lives or recruit new young people into criminality. When they finally come out, we shall ensure that they do not relapse into crime.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs a new criminal law, a new balance where we re-weigh the scales with a focus on increased penalties rather than discounts.

We Christian Democrats want to change the volume discounts in their current form and let aggravating circumstances carry more weight. Victims of crime must not be left behind, for if we do, we leave the entire society behind.

Ultimately, it is about values – that there should be justice, that the one who is affected by a crime and the violation it entails shall receive the redress that is deserved.

The Christian Democrats are the values-driven party. As a Christian Democrat, I will always fight for the values that have built our society strong. These values are needed now more than ever.

With these words, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Torsten Elofsson for the speech.

It is probably quite familiar that we are not entirely in agreement on the direction of the crime policy and the causes of crime. What I now took note of in the speech was the member's assertion that the public believes that stricter punishments are effective. Against that stands unanimous research, both Swedish and international, which says that is not the case. What is decisive for very many is instead the risk of detection.

I wonder if the member has any comment on this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Gudrun Nordborg for the question.

What I referred to was a survey showing that the public holds that conviction. There is, in itself, no contradiction in this. The researchers do point out that there are conflicting factors, but stricter punishments undeniably have a crime-preventing effect in the sense that people, as long as they are incapacitated, cannot commit crimes.

That was also what I pointed out in my speech: Longer sentences seem to have a deterrent effect in the sense that hardened criminals cannot commit new crimes.

Since then, they have had a certain deterrent effect, but it is debated in science. Research is what it is, and there is no complete consensus regarding this question.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I repeat that I assert that the research, both international and Swedish, is almost entirely in agreement that longer sentences do not deter and discourage new crimes.

If we were to lock everyone up in prisons, then no crimes would occur in society, but the question is whether it is worth it for every criminal. Or should we have a sharper grading where those we can agree are dangerous and threatening receive the long sentences, while we have a different approach to others who commit crimes, i.e., a more nuanced view of the effects of punishment in relation to what the research says?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We carried out a major criminal justice reform in the 70s, and now we behold the result. We have for decades worked with different types of crime prevention measures. We have also liberalized the view on criminals and considered them to be some kind of victims who, without their own fault, are drawn into crime. Everything has been society's fault.

Now we see the result of this. Organized crime has been allowed to grow strong. The violent crime we are now witnessing has been allowed to grow strong without anything being done.

The Left says all the time that one must invest more in crime prevention measures, as if we hadn't already done so. In my hometown Malmö, we have thrown millions upon millions into crime prevention efforts to fix the vulnerable areas, including in Rosengård. We have invested more in, among other things, teachers and teacher density. Has it helped? No, it hasn't.

Now we are reforming the criminal law in such a way that the penalties are tightened for the most serious criminals. Then there is a scale for which types of crimes should lead to custodial sentences, ankle bracelets or supervised release and conditional sentences. When we look at the types of crimes we are now combating, I see no reason to tinker with crime prevention measures. The young people have already fallen into the pattern, and they become hardened criminals before they turn 15. Then we must take action. One part is to tighten the sentences for the most serious criminals.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Committee's report on the motions regarding the criminal law issues, and the Committee briefly proposes that all motions be rejected with reference to the fact that the issues are being addressed in various ways within the Government Offices. That is all.

The major criminal law reforms, beyond what is proposed in the motions today, have been worked on intensively, and there will be a quite large delivery phase from the government in the first half of 2026, which many of us are looking forward to.

Madam Speaker! Criminal law is, however, always interesting to debate because it often highlights political and ideological differences in a good way. In Sweden, over the last 50 years, we have had a left-oriented crime policy that has focused on explaining the causes of crimes through social injustices. The solutions have thus always been that law-abiding established citizens should pay more in taxes, which should then go to criminals so that criminals can avoid committing new crimes in order to experience the feeling of a more classless society.

Millions and billions have been spent on youth centers, sports venues, integration projects and juice and buns in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas as the only solution to increasing crime. Despite this, crime has only escalated.

So, there is something wrong with the left's politics because it does not yield satisfactory results. Thank goodness, I want to assert, the Tidö Agreement's criminal law reforms will mean an end to the left-wing fluff in crime policy. What we are doing right now will result in a historical trend break in Swedish politics.

I mean, as a conservative, that everyone in a society like the one Sweden offers has an individual responsibility for their own actions. Thus, I justify that punishment must entail a tangible marking against the criminal act. In my view, the punishment has an intrinsic value in itself as a norm-forming consequence, and in my view, the punishment should be designed as part of the restitution for the crime victims. At the same time, a punishment must also include a guarantee that dangerous persons will not be able to commit new crimes.

The argument that longer sentences do not help and that long prison sentences risk making criminals even more dangerous does not have a place in a modern conservative criminal law that puts law-abiding citizens and crime victims in the foreground. That longer sentences do not help has been a frequently used argument over the years from the left wing, and we also heard it during the exchange of remarks. It does not necessarily have to be factually incorrect, but we prioritize completely different perspectives. The left, which views criminals as victims of societal injustices, simply does not want a punishment to be a marking that affects the criminal negatively. Instead, the punishment should be an opportunity for the criminal.

I and many with me instead emphasize individual responsibility for one's own actions and instead safeguard the vulnerability of crime victims and society's need for protection. It can mean that criminals find it a bit harder, and it is a completely natural political conflict.

Madam Speaker! There are great differences between the Sweden Democrats' and the Social Democrats' criminal justice policy, and I am grateful that we are not represented by Magdalena Andersson and Morgan Johansson. When this parliamentary term is over, we will also have put an end to the Social Democrats' era of crime policy, and I feel great popular support for what we are doing right now.

Madam Speaker! When this parliamentary term is over, we will see completely new sentences that are more in line with the general sense of justice than we have ever seen before. We are talking about double sentences for gang criminals, and we will see indeterminate sentences for dangerous repeat offenders and a lowered age of criminal responsibility with juvenile prison instead of juvenile care. We will see a significant increase for those who commit multiple crimes with heavily or completely abolished sentence reductions – to mention a few examples.

Overall, our criminal justice reforms will result in a historically high prison population, which is therefore something positive given how society looks today. Furthermore, we will see historically high levels when it comes to deportations of foreign citizens who commit crimes, when we have changed the conditions for when they should be deported and when we have introduced mandatory requirements for prosecutors to always consider deportation when foreigners commit crimes.

Madam Speaker! There is a big difference between the Social Democrats' and the Sweden Democrats' crime policy. Now we are leaving the "saft-and-bulle" policy behind and prioritizing real punishments, more deportations, and not least real justice worthy of the name for the crime victims.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 1. I do so on behalf of the Left Party because it would be an important reform if we can seriously take a stand against psychological violence and controlling behavior.

I want to go back a little bit historically and mention the domestic violence reforms in the late 90s. They had the purpose of reducing the focus on how one looked almost exclusively at the physical violence in order to instead try to see the psychological effects of the violence, that is, a shift towards the internal wounds, the most painful ones, which remain as scars even if bruises and broken bones have healed.

So, a legal paradigm shift took place there. One was not to see every act as an isolated incident, but it could be a matter of a process where one would mark against the repetition. That was done in the legislative text by introducing the crime of aggravated breach of the peace if the act occurs in a close relationship. If it was a man who attacked his woman, the crime was aggravated breach of a woman's peace. This was partially successful. The interpretation of the psychological effects as the serious aspect of the crime has, however, faded in the application of the law. It is still the case that the focus in the judicial system is mostly on the physical violence.

There have nevertheless been subsequent criminalizations that have been based on the question of repetition. It is particularly important to mention the crime of violating a child's peace in this context. There, we can now include psychological violence as an element even in the crime of violating a child's peace and mark that the violence is of extremely serious significance for children.

The memorandum mentioned in the report, which we are actually discussing when we talk about psychological violence, was submitted as early as August 2022. It contained wise arguments about how this violence works and what this could include, including incorporating economic violence and controlling behavior into psychological violence. It was very wisely conceived. But the memorandum was submitted, and the government set the deadline for the consultation period to November 15, 2022. It has been more than two years and five months since then. Since then, the government has been working on how to formulate the penal provisions.

I mean that it can be wise with some reflection here. There were, in fact, some critical comments about wanting clarification in the legal text, which of course is important. But is it supposed to take this long? In other cases, where it has not been about the vulnerability of women and children, the government has moved much faster.

It was claimed that it was primarily among the actors in the justice system that there were doubts. It was extremely interesting to read the referral responses at all. They showed a very varied level of competence regarding violence, not least from the justice system's side. What bothered me most was the Prosecution Authority, which stated the following regarding economic violence: "In this context, the strong motive that may exist for the victim to subsequently claim incorrect circumstances in order to avoid repayment liability cannot be disregarded."

There were many more within the justice system who had a much more realistic insight into what this violence entails. Stockholm District Court spoke of a regime of violence. Svea Court of Appeal noted that a reform was an important step in the right direction. Lund University noted that it was extremely important to also obtain a language for what many women and children experience and the suffering that this entails.

Umeå University did the same and also showed that it can become dangerous if we divide violence into too many different types. They often occur in parallel and reinforce each other. It is a statement, which many others have also made, against us fragmenting violence. It is something that is ongoing and which, taken together, has serious consequences. Not infrequently, the psychological violence in a relationship comes first, and then it is built upon with perhaps all the other forms of violence.

I also want to bring up the Istanbul Convention. It is only when we reach the referral responses from non-governmental organizations that it is highlighted. It is noted that psychological violence and economic violence are included in what we, according to the convention, have committed to act against.

I also want to touch upon the rules on division of property, which we have discussed quite a bit in this chamber. The division rules can provide room for further forms of economic violence.

During my time as a lecturer at Umeå University, I taught subjects including family law. Our legislation had for a long time texts stating that if a long marriage, where the woman had stayed at home and served the man who had made a career, ended in divorce—which often involved the man having met a younger woman—the man would be obligated to provide maintenance, in any case during a transitional period. Then the woman could establish herself on the labor market in some way, for example by undergoing a shorter education.

I remember the reactions from the students after a few years, when we had perhaps made more progress with equality thinking. They said: But will he never get rid of her? Today, instead, we ask ourselves if she will never get rid of him. It can involve constructions with debts, guarantees and other obligations that the man has committed to and that the woman becomes stuck in.

I would like to conclude by saying something that I have often said from the rostrum. The violence that we see in families and close relationships risks spreading and also entering what we easily focus even more on; it is about gang crime and the explosions. It is of course very serious. But we must not overlook what the foundations can be.

We have today even more documentation and research showing that most of the perpetrators have experienced violence early in life. I believe there is reason to take care of the young crime victims much more, so that they do not also become perpetrators.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! In recent years, we have seen a very problematic development regarding safety in Sweden. It has deteriorated. We see gang crime with shootings and explosions. We see human trafficking, weapons and drugs. We see fraud against the elderly and against the welfare system. All are very serious crimes. And much good has been done, but much more needs to be done.

Today, however, I will focus on an equally serious area: violence by men against women and violence in relationships.

When we talk about gang crime, we sometimes talk about vulnerable areas. But I want to remind you that when it comes to sexual offenses, men's violence against women and violence against children, all of Sweden is a vulnerable area. It is not streets and squares that are the crime scene. The crime most often occurs in the home but also online.

I want to once again highlight the need for a present and accessible police force throughout the country for all crimes and for all victims of crime.

In this report, the Center Party however highlights the need for psychological violence and controlling behavior to be criminalized. It was, as several others have said here, in the autumn of 2021 that the Social Democratic government tasked an investigator to review the criminal liability for psychological violence. The assignment included taking a position on whether the penal provisions for gross violation of peace and gross violation of women's peace should be changed or if a new crime should be introduced.

In the memorandum that arrived in August 2022, a new type of crime, psychological abuse, was proposed, and that the crime designation should also cover economic violence. The memorandum with the proposals has been subject to consultation, and since November 2022, the proposals have been prepared within the Government Offices, now not with a Social Democratic government but with the Tidö government. There, the proposals have been prepared for two and a half years – for two and a half years the proposals have been prepared.

It is constitutionally perfectly in order to lay down inquiries or to not take them further. Things change. But we have a Minister for Justice who has said in, among other things, interpellations debates that the government sees this as a comprehensive problem and that it is very important to address it even in terms of criminal law. Moderate members here today also say that. Then one says: We just need to find a way to solve it, so that we get the force, clarity, and visibility that the problems deserve.

After two and a half years, I and vulnerable women in Sweden wish that the government handles it with the speed, promptness and priority that the problems and the vulnerable deserve.

Criminal law issues

Centerpartiet therefore moves for approval of reservation 1.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 10.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)